What problems and dilemmas are faced in the development of civil society in war-torn societies? What types of activities do NGOs undertake and what are their strengths and limitations? This chapter focuses on the potential contribution that civil society actors can make to peacebuilding, drawing on lessons from Bosnia-Herzegovina. It argues that support for civil society should be further developed as a key element of development and peace politics, particularly in post-war contexts.
There is no commonly-agreed definition of civil society, although there is consensus that civil society is the arena of voluntary collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. However, the boundaries between state and civil society are often blurred. Further, in war-torn societies, liberal-democratic attitudes of citizenship are likely to be very difficult to implement – and might not be relevant. It could be more useful to consider the positive mutual accommodation of state and non-state traditional (and civil society) mechanisms and institutions.
The role, impact and legitimacy of NGOs in international politics remain debatable. NGOs’ strengths include their political independence, flexible mandates, impartiality and credibility. However, they have been criticised for: 1) lack of independence as a result of public financing; 2) lack of transparency and legitimacy (not being subject to democratic control); 3) altered performance – functioning as commercial service providers, and potentially driven primarily by money rather than social need – because of the requirements of donor markets and mass media; 4) exporting and imposing western concepts that are inadequate in relation to social realities in other countries; and 5) potential interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.
Experiences from post-war Bosnia-Herzegovina demonstrate that peacebuilding is a very demanding task for civil society. This is particularly so in ethnopolitically-divided societies where institutions are not accepted as legitimate by significant parts of the population. Lessons from the Bosnia case include the following:
- Do not overload civil society with unrealistic expectations. It cannot repair or compensate for the failures of (international) state-building endeavours.
- Link civil society development with incentives for institutional and political reforms, involving as many different types of civil society actors as possible to ensure that changes will be broadly debated and finally backed by the wider society.
- State-building and the building of civil society should be complementary processes that are appropriate to the respective context, culture and tradition. They cannot be undertaken separately or sequentially, or in opposition to each another.
Civil society actors have important potential for peacebuilding at the international, regional and local levels. They are indispensable in facilitating reconciliation between hostile communities, and can promote citizens’ identification with the polity. However, civil society initiatives in fragmented societies can only influence political change to a limited extent.
The quality of external support for local civil society actors must be improved. Donors need to:
- Better attune funding schemes to the specific needs and dynamics of local actors, so as to facilitate longer-term planning.
- Select appropriate local partners to avoid the possible misuse and waste of resources. Building civil society does not necessarily mean setting up new NGOs.
- Avoid undermining the efforts of local civil society peace initiatives, especially by imposing donor agendas.
- Include civil society actors from the beginning in all phases of war-to-peace transition – from peace negotiations and implementation of agreements to post-conflict peacebuilding.
- Remember that external support can only strengthen (not create) local capacities.
NGOs need to forge ‘horizontal’ alliances by communicating among themselves so as to avoid duplicated effort. They also need to look for ‘vertical’ alliance partners in parliaments, governments and administrations.
